Category: Vaccines

Posted on

CV #26(C): Exposing The Lies Of The Inflated Death Tolls


The BBC reported that the World Health Organization had changed its position on face masks due to political pressure, not science.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

This series continues into the lies, distortions and manipulations of the coronavirus industry. In order to understand why it’s happening, it’s necessary to show the lobbying, influence peddling and money trail that is going on. This is a multi billion dollar industry, and a lot of people have a vested interest in prolonging it.

Part 1: Gates; Pirbright Institute; Virus Patents
Part 3: Gates, GAVI, ID2020, Agenda 2030, WHO, CDC
Part 4: Gates using proxies to lobby Trudeau
Part 9: M-132, pharma lobbying hearings in Canada
Part 11: Pharma lobbying in Ontario, Bill 160 stalled
Part 14: lobbying behind $176M grant to AbCellera
Part 18: Vaccine bonds industry rising up
Part 21: Pharma lobbying by Gates’ many allies
Part 24: Gates financing Imperial College London models

2. Tactic Of Inflating The Total Deaths

In most cases, if you want to convince people that a big lie is true, different tactics will be needed. For the coronavirus planned-emic, this is no different. Originally, people in the West were told this was no big deal. Then suddenly, the narrative shifted to one of an urgent pandemic.

However, the lies that governments and the media tell are being exposed. The hype, the overdramatization, and the falsified death tolls are coming out. That’s what the bulk of this article will focus on. And more and more people are seeing through this hoax.

What comes next? There has been a shift as of late to prepare “for the second wave”. Now public figures state that what we saw wasn’t too bad, and that there is still worse to come.

3. Reported Death Tolls Are Based On Lies

Despite the media’s complicity in perpetuating the coronavirus planned-emic, there are many instances of some very powerful people telling the truth. They are just getting lost in the mix, or they change their tune. Here are some of them.

Now let’s go through the evidence.

4. WHO Waffles, Asymptomatic Transmission

Both videos, here, and here, are of Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the World Health Organization’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit. First, she claims that asymptomatic transfer of this virus is extremely rare. Obvious question, where are the numbers coming from if asymptomatic transfer is so rare? This statement would indicate that the lockdown and shutdown measures are unnecessary, and should be immediately ended. That is the logical conclusion. Then she claims that an estimated 6% to 41% of the global population may be infected but not have symptoms. Supposedly they think it’s around 16%, but refused to disclose how that estimate was arrived at. So nearly half the population could be infected already.

5. Center For Disease Control Guidelines

Alert-1-Guidance-for-Certifying-COVID-19-Deaths
Alert-2-New-ICD-code-introduced-for-COVID-19-deaths

COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death. Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, medical records, laboratory testing, etc. If the decedent had other chronic conditions such as COPD or asthma that may have also contributed, these conditions can be reported in Part II. (See attached Guidance for Certifying COVID-19 Deaths)

The CDC, the Center for Disease Control, has issues new guidelines which make it easy to declare deaths to be the result of coronavirus, based on “presumption”, not any actual knowledge. Seems easy to fudge the results, especially when there is a financial incentive for doing so.

https://twitter.com/mrctv/status/1290374377461018624

6. CDC Admits 94% Deaths Weren’t CV Alone

Comorbidities
Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death. The number of deaths with each condition or cause is shown for all deaths and by age groups.

The CDC Admits that 94% of deaths had at least one other major co-morbidity. The actual mortality rate of coronavirus is actually much lower.

7. Deborah Birx, White House

Perhaps Anthony Fauci thinks that Deborah Birx is lying when she stated that the virus death tolls are being inflated. Apparently, simply having the virus and dying with it can be conflated as dying from it. However, on a May 2 followup interview, Birx repeatedly dodged that same question about inflation of CV deaths.

8. Anthony Fauci Lies About Masks

Anthony Fauci later claimed he only recommended against masks in order to prevent a buying spree which would have left no masks available for health care workers. Motives aside, he blatantly lied to the public. In the third video, he appears to take the mask off as soon as the cameras are off. But remember, trust the experts and official sources. True, this does not “directly” have to do with inflated number of cases. However, if Fauci is willing to perpetuate this hoax, it’s fair to assume he would go along with inflating the number of CV deaths.

9. State Of Colorado Conflating Cases

The State of Colorado was recently exposed for inflating the death toll for how it calculates CV deaths. Check out their reporting and the inflation that has been exposed.

10. Minnesota Senator, Dr. Scott Jensen

Dr. Scott Jensen, also a Minnesota State Senator, shares what he received with regarding classifying deaths are CV deaths. Involves fudging the cause of death.

11. Mobile County, Alabama Health Dept.

In Mobile County, Alabama there was at least one case (that’s been admitted to) that a death unrelated to CV was written up as a CV death. The State Health Department claims it was just a “clerical error”, and that there was no ill intent.

12. Washington State Health Dept.

cste.interim-20-id-01_covid-19

As of May 18, the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) has reported 18,433 cases of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 1,001 deaths in Washington state due to the virus.

However, Freedom Foundation research indicates DOH’s reported COVID-19 death total is inflated by as much as 13 percent due to state’s practice of counting every person who tests positive for COVID-19 and subsequently dies, even if the death was not caused by COVID-19.

On Friday, the Colorado Department of Health and Environment revised that state’s total deaths “due to” COVID-19 downward from 1,150 to 878 after local news reported the state was inflating its fatality count in a similar fashion.

Freedom Foundation reported that Washington State has been inflating the death toll by including people who have died while having the disease, but not actually dying from it.

13. Montana Physician Dr. Annie Bukacek

There is a talk by Montana physician Dr. Annie Bukacek on how COVID 19 death certificates are being manipulated. Actual CV deaths and “presumptive” deaths are being conflated.

14. Pennsylvania Counting “Probable” Cases

https://twitter.com/PAHealthDept/status/1253397752358281217

The Government of Pennsylvania claims that it is a very small number (about 2%) of total deaths which are considered probable. One has to wonder how many autopsies were actually done.

15. New York State Counting “Probable” Cases

Still, quantifying fatalities and the mortality rate remains elusive. Case in point: New York City. As the New York Times reported yesterday, Gotham’s Health Department abruptly added 3,700 victims to the COVID-19 death toll even though these decedents were not tested.

Despite the lack of coronavirus diagnoses in these cases, the inference that it was a factor in death (or, as the city insists, the proximate cause) is not irrational. The Health Department says that 3,000 more people died in the last month than would ordinarily have been expected in the City this time of year. The City has been vexed by the sparse availability of testing. By counting only people who had tested positive, it was surely undercounting COVID-19 deaths to some degree.

One has to wonder how New York got to be the so-called epicenter of this outbreak. Was it just assuming that people who died has died of this virus, without doing any testing?

16. Motorcycle Crash In Florida, COD Is CV-19

A motorcycle crash in Florida which killed someone was written up as CV-19. There was some “justification” that well, CV-19 could have led to it. There are also very vague guidelines which allow fudging the numbers.

17. Illnois Counting “With” CV As “From” CV

https://twitter.com/mrctv/status/1254077961369608192

Also in Illinois, simply dying while having this virus is enough to be “counted” as a covid death, even if it was something else entirely that did the person in.

18. White House Press Core Knows It’s A Hoax

Reporters at the White House press briefings where masks when the press conferences are going on. But they know that the masks (and the death tolls), are all just a show to keep the public in line.

19. Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister

Trudeau dodging questions about his hypocrisy in attending race-protests. Shutting down the country is necessary for public safety, but protesting woke causes doesn’t pose a serious risk. Okay, sure.

Now, it’s been addressed elsewhere that this is likely just his double, but that’s a story for another time.

20. Theresa Tam, CPHO Head, WHO Operative

https://twitter.com/CPHO_Canada/status/1267623514258976768
https://twitter.com/CPHO_Canada/status/1267623515311747076
https://twitter.com/CPHO_Canada/status/1267623516389736455
https://twitter.com/CPHO_Canada/status/1267623517362814976

Tam can’t even give a straight answer on whether the test results are accurate. Of course, it’s hard to take this “person” seriously when publicly saying that participating in race riots is not dangerous to public health. And let’s not forget about this 2010 film that Tam co-starred in.

img src=”https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/tam.recovery-300×273.png” alt=”” width=”500″ height=”450″ class=”alignnone size-medium wp-image-10897″ />
https://twitter.com/CPHO_Canada/status/1288821752206778369

Tam admits that the overwhelming majority of people have already recovered — without an vaccine — yet still pushes the agenda.

Also, protesting woke causes apparently doesn’t lead to more cases. Tam claimed the protests on “systemic racism” didn’t lead to more cases.

21. Quebec Gov’t Doesn’t Want Autopsies

The Government of Quebec decided that in cases where CV was suspected in a death, there was to be no autopsy. Instead, the cause of death was to be ruled as CV-19.

22. ON Admits 50% Are False Postives

People really think that testing is going to solve the entire problem, and it isn’t. It’s one component of a response. If you test someone today, you only know if they’re infected today. And in fact, of you’re testing in a population that doesn’t have very much covid, you’ll get false positives, almost half the time. That is, the person doesn’t actually have covid. They have something else. They may have nothing. So, it will just complicate the picture. On the other hand, if we have evidence of a case, even a suspect case in school, all the contacts, be it a child or a teacher, would be tested.

Associate Medical Health Officer of Ontario, Barbara Yaffe, admits that the CV tests are pretty useless, and can result in up to 50% false positives. It can be nothing, or it can be something else.

Of course, Doug Ford won’t give a straight answer when called out on it. He seems to try to make himself blameless by always deferring to someone else. Not that he’s the Premier or anything.

23. Ontario Government, Doug Ford

Ontario Premier Ford, and Health Minister Elliot admit there have been cases where CV was written up as the cause of death, even when that was not the case. No amount of sugar coating can hide it.


https://twitter.com/fordnation/status/1293211043733405696

Ford admitted on Twitter on August 11, 2020, that there are duplicate cases being counted.

24. Admission From Toronto Public Health

https://twitter.com/TOPublicHealth/status/1275888390060285967

Toronto Public Health has admitted to fabricating its death toll. If a person dies WITH coronavirus, it is reported that they died BECAUSE of coronavirus. These are two entirely different things.

25. Niagara Region

The Niagara Region case count.

26. Thunder Bay District Health Unit

Information from the Thunder Bay District Health Unit

Same problem in Hamilton.

27. The United Kingdom (Great Britain)

This seems to apply to all regions within the UK.

Total number of people who had a positive test result for COVID-19 and died within 28 days of the first positive test, reported on or up to the date of death or reporting date (depending on availability).

People who died more than 28 days after their first positive test are not included, whether or not COVID-19 was the cause of death. People who died within 28 days of a positive test are included: the actual cause of death may not be COVID-19 in all cases. People who died from COVID-19 but had not been tested or had not tested positive are not included.

Death data can be presented by when death occurred (date of death) or when the death was reported (date reported) and the availability of each of these time series varies by area:

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/about-data

28. Problem Is Being Artificially Inflated

So who is claiming that the death tolls are exaggerated, or outright made up? Here is the list again. Despite this, our freedoms are still being taken away. Take a good long look at it.

  1. The World Health Organization
  2. The White House, Deborah Birx
  3. The CDC, Center for Disease Control
  4. Anthony Fauci, NIAID Director
  5. The State of Colorado
  6. Dr. Scott Jenson, MN State Senator
  7. The Mobile County, Alabama Health Department
  8. The Washington State Department of Health
  9. Dr. Annie Bukacek, from Montana State
  10. Public Health of Pennsylvania State
  11. Health Department of New York State
  12. A motorcycle crash death in Florida was considered CV-19
  13. Illinois lists “dying with” covid as “dying of” covid
  14. White House Press Core
  15. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
  16. Theresa Tam, CPHO Director
  17. The Province of Quebec on determining deaths
  18. The Ontario Government of Doug Ford
  19. Toronto Public Health, Mayor John Tory
  20. Niagara Region Health Department
  21. Thunder Bay District Health Unit
  22. Hamilton Health Unit
  23. The United Kingdom (Great Britain)

Here are concrete examples, (among others), that coronavirus death counts are being inflated. How is this so? Because if a person does WITH this virus, it is counted as being the CAUSE OF the deaths, even when the deaths had nothing to do with the virus. In short, various governments are blatantly lying to their people in order to justify draconian measures.

How much more evidence do you need?

29.Bonnie Henry Admits There Is No Science

https://www.facebook.com/BCProvincialGovernment/videos/812139859192163/

Watch starting around the 35:15 mark. BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry admits that there was no science behind the decision to limit gatherings to 50 people.

30. UK Test Mixes CV And Flu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy5Udwr_0gk
https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/1290247968646340609
http://archive.is/bm8gu

31. Diversion To Mass Asymptomatic Cases

On June 9, the World Health Organization responded to considerable confusion from an earlier statement that asymptomatic transmission was very rare. They now believe (or claim to believe) that the actual 6% and 41% of the general population is infected but not showing symptoms. That said, they estimate that it is close to 16%, or 1 in 6 people globally.

So if between 468 million and 3.2 billion people are already infected, but asymptomatic, what exactly are you planning to do?

Other variations of that are coming up, but the new narrative seems to be that infection rate is far, far beyond what was originally thought. Obvious question: if up to half the planet is infected, and there are no symptoms, what exactly is the health crisis?

The World Economic Forum is now promoting the same narrative, that there are many times more infected people than originally thought. They estimate (using Chinese data), that 80% of people infected have little to no symptoms.

Obvious question: if people are infected on such a level and not dying, how will the scam keep going? That takes us to the new narrative ==> prepare for the second wave.

32. Diversion To: 2nd Wave Is Coming

A quick search will reveal hundreds of articles and videos, telling people that the second wave is coming and that we need to prepare. Incidently, the renewed pressure to get everyone wearing masks is at least partly to keep a continuous reminder that there is a pandemic.

Since Western governments aren’t slaughtering millions of people (at least for now), it’s necessary to keep people constantly aware that there is a pandemic. They have to know that their lives are in constant danger.


What does Victorian Premier Dan Andrews have to say?
“changing behaviour”
“changing your routine”
“changing your habits”
“changing your routine”
“making it so you can’t leave home without one”

The lies about the death toll are being exposed. Therefore the powers that be need to shift the narrative to one where the worst is still to come.

The reality is that this quest for control is a long term plan. They have no intention of just giving up on it, regardless of what we expose.

Posted on

CV #26(B): WHO Lies About Asymptomic Transmission To Perpetuate Hoax

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

This has been a lengthy series on the lies, distortions and manipulations of the coronavirus industry. In order to understand why it’s happening, it’s necessary to show the lobbying, influence peddling and money trail that is going on. This is a multi billion dollar industry, and a lot of people have a vested interest in prolonging it.

2. WHO Claims Asymptomatic Transfer Rare

Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the World Health Organization’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, claims that asymptomatic transfer of this virus is extremely rare. This statement would indicate that the lockdown and shutdown measures are unnecessary, and should be immediately ended. That is the logical conclusion.

3. WHO Immediately Flip Flops On Position

Looking at this “revised” statement, Maria Van Kerkhove now claims that an estimated 6% to 41% of the global population may be infected but not have symptoms. Supposedly they think it’s around 16%, but refused to disclose how that estimate was arrived at. So nearly half the population could be infected already.

There’s also a Clinton-esque parsing of words. Apparently, “very rare” doesn’t actually mean “very rare.

Let’s do some quick math.
There are 7.8 billion people on the planet as of March 2020 (according to Wikipedia). Let’s take that at face value here.

At 6% infection, there would be 468 million infected people.
At 16% infection, there would be 1.248 billion infected people.
At 41% infection, there would be 3.198 billion infected people.

Also keep in mind those estimates are from nearly a month ago. It is surely higher now. It was reported on June 18 by Reuters, that CV deaths had exceeded 500,000. Okay, let’s use that.

If 6% is infected, then 500,000/468M = 0.107% mortality.
If 16% is infected, then 500,000/1.248B = 0.04% mortality.
If 41% is infected, then 500,000/3.198B = 0.016% mortality.

For some context, using WHO’s “estimates” of 6-41% of asymptomatic global infection (which is almost a month old), try this. If you had a town of 100,000 people, and 100% had the virus, between 16 and 107 of them would die from it.

Does this sound very deadly?

Of course, we should also point out that the overwhelming majority of people had underlying health problems, and that many jurisdictions are deliberately inflating their death tolls. There are skeptics (such as me), who wonder if this virus was a hoax to begin with.

4. WHO Additionally “Clarifies” Itself

Apparently, they have no idea how many people are infected but show no symptoms. WHO also doesn’t have a clue how many asymptomatic people can go on to infect others.

Also, singing and shouting seem to be a health hazard, since it will infect people a distance away, even though WHO doesn’t know how often this actually happens. Even giving WHO the benefit of the doubt every step of the way (and assuming there is no intentional deceit), it becomes clear they don’t have a clue what they’re doing.

5. WHO: Transmission Is An Evolving Science

Supposedly the WHO has said since early February that spreading by asymptomatic people is possible, but that they didn’t know the degree of which it happens. That’s not very encouraging. The position, in a nutshell: we don’t have a clue how this spreads or transmits, so let’s just shut down society and see what happens.

6. WHO: Woke Protests Don’t Spread CV

At 3:27 in the video, Trudeau talks about loosening the “population control measures”. Yes, he actually used that term. This was always about control, and never about public health.

https://twitter.com/CPHO_Canada/status/1267623514258976768
https://twitter.com/CPHO_Canada/status/1267623515311747076
https://twitter.com/CPHO_Canada/status/1267623516389736455
https://twitter.com/CPHO_Canada/status/1267623517362814976

Some will remember that Theresa Tam (who also works for the World Health Organization), said that protesting certain causes is okay and can be done safely. Just remember to wear a mask, and don’t shout. Very interesting. Walking the wrong way down a grocery aisle is a safety issue, but mass gatherings to protest “systematic racism” can be done without spiking the cases.

7. WHO: Confirmed Cases Just Tip Of Iceberg

According to Theresa Tam, who again, works for the World Health Organization, the number of laboratory confirmed cases is just the tip of the iceberg. This implies that it is many, MANY times higher than what it is thought to be. Isn’t is reasonable to infer that if such widespread infection has already happened, that this “virus” isn’t nearly as deadly as originally thought?

Oddly, in the video, Tam talks in circles to avoid answering the question as to whether the testing numbers are accurate.

So which is it?
Is this a virus that is spread extremely easily, that many millions of people are already infected, but that it’s not really that deadly a disease? Or is it a deadly virus that relatively few people have, and it’s not easily spreading? It can’t simultaneously be both cases.

8. Canada Planning For Second Wave


This could just be poor wording, but Ottawa is supposedly planning (did they mean “preparing”?), for a second wave of this virus.

These statements seem to be contradictory to what was said before. If the number of official cases was just the tip of the iceberg (and WHO estimates 6% to 41% are already infected, how exactly would a second wave happen? Society is already infected on a huge scale.

If this transmissibility rate is anywhere near accurate, then the population is already infected, rending this second wave a non-issue. This of course assumes that CV-19 is a real thing, and not a media concoction.

Remember, in it’s “clarified” statement, the World Health Organization said that it estimates that between 6% and 41% of the population is already infected, and figures that the real total is close to 16%.

9. Death Tolls All Based On Lies

Perhaps Anthony Fauci thinks that Deborah Birx is lying when she stated that the virus death tolls are being inflated. Apparently, simply having the virus and dying with it can be conflated as dying from it.

It’s been admitted by

(among others), that coronavirus death counts are being inflated. How is this so? Because if a person does WITH this virus, it is counted as being the CAUSE OF the deaths, even when the deaths had nothing to do with the virus. In short, various governments are blatantly lying to their people in order to justify draconian measures.

10. This Is All About Control

The measures we are seeing have nothing to do with promoting or protecting public health. They are not about making society a healthier place to be.

This is all about control. It’s about controlling your ability to earn a living, travel, go about your daily life, attend mass and other gatherings. This was never about helping the population. As Trudeau (or his double), put it, this is about “controlling” the population.

Just to repeat: the World Health Organization estimates that between 6% and 41% of the population is infected, and believes it is close to 16% (or about 1 in 6 total).

At 6% infection, there would be 468 million infected people.
At 16% infection, there would be 1.248 billion infected people.
At 41% infection, there would be 3.198 billion infected people.

If 6% is infected, then 500,000/468M = 0.107% mortality.
If 16% is infected, then 500,000/1.248B = 0.04% mortality.
If 41% is infected, then 500,000/3.198B = 0.016% mortality.

If people are willing to accept “this” as normal, then they will likely accept anything, such as vaccines and implanted ID. Of course, people need to think that this is a real pandemic. They need to believe that this is a deadly virus and easily transmissible.

Final thought: does this virus even really exist?

Posted on

UNESCO’s Campaign To Counter “Mis-Information”

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

So far there are 27 pieces on the coronavirus planned-emic, (it started at #0). Much of it focuses on the lobbying and corruption that is at the heart of it. Once you follow the money, it becomes quite clear how and why this happening. Very tedious, but it is a wealth of information, very little of it shared by official sources.

2. Media Bias, Lies, Omissions And Corruption

Lies and distortion by the media are nothing new. In order to convince people to undertake extreme measures, it’s often necessary to get them believing the absurd. Here is the series so far on media corruption on the website, a few of them directly related to the CV planned-emic. More examples are surely on the way.

3. Remember: Only Trust The Experts

Anthony Fauci later claimed he only recommended against masks in order to prevent a buying spree which would have left no masks available for health care workers. Motives aside, he blatantly lied to the public. In the third video, he appears to take the mask off as soon as the cameras are off. But remember, trust the experts and official sources.

4. UNESCO Guidelines On Fake News

For the original source of these audio clips, check the page on the UNESCO website. It is creepy the level to which they tell others to ignore contradictory viewpoints.

(1) Only official sources and trusted media outlets are to be listened to. Assume that if it conflicts with the settled narrative, it’s fake news.

(2) Teach your child that if a piece of information on CV is not from an official source, it should not be listed, let alone shared with anyone.

(3) If an “expert” is not from an approved or official agency, chances are they are a disinformation agent whose goal is deceive and mislead the public.

(4) CV information can be created and released in such a way as to be emotionally manipulative. Remember, the only ones allowed to manipulate are official sources. Don’t trust any others

(5) Disinformation is a serious problem. Therefore, the only sources of information that can be trusted are official, public ones. All others are to be viewed with suspicion.

(6) Quality journalism is important, but the only journalists who can be trusted are those reporting the official narrative on CV.

(7) Remember: UNESCO tells you to not like or share any information you see on social media if you don’t know where it cam from. First, you should check with the World Health Organization. If the information conflicts, feel free to post WHO talking points on the other media.

(8) Access to public information is essential. Just remember, the only sources we can trust are official ones. Freedom of the media is our strength.

(9) Apparently this planned-emic is a great opportunity to squash racism and come together as one human race. Unity through diversity apparently.

Remember folks: the only sources of information you can trust are official media outlets, certain organizations, and government officials. Everything else to be met with skepticism, if not rejected out of hand.

It’s interesting that UNESCO doesn’t encourage people to think critically, or try to spot conflicting or illogical claims. UNESCO doesn’t ask people to apply any logic or reasoning and get to the truth themselves. Instead, it is drilled in that only official sources are to be trusted.

5. Book: Journalism, Fake News, Disinformation

journalism_fake_news_disinformation_print_friendly_0_0

Then there are the many ways that journalism can respond directly to disinformation and misinformation. These include resisting manipulation, through to investigating and direct exposing disinformation campaigns. But these have to be accompanied by major efforts to improve journalism in general (see below).

The “major efforts” which Cherilyn Ireton and Julie Posetti list below are chilling. They are absolutely an attack on independent journalism, and against people who don’t tow the line. It’s interesting to note that the authors are not merely acknowledging that this happens. They openly call for it.

Societal responses to ‘information disorder’ and challenges thrown up by social media platforms are varied and take place on multiple levels. Solutions are evolving – some rapidly. Many originate in the U .S., where the social media companies and Google are headquartered. Some evolving tech-related initiatives to address misinformation include:
(a) A commitment to engineering out of search results and news feeds what the company (not without controversy) deems to be fraudulent news
(b) Starving disinformation providers of click-driven advertising revenue
(c) Providing tech-driven solutions for verifying digital content and images
(d) Funding of supportive journalism initiatives that are at the intersection of journalism, technology and academic research
(e) The development and use of technical standards, or trust signals, to help consumers (and algorithms) identify news emanating from credible providers.

This is from page 37 of the book. Techniques to combat what they refer to as “misinformation”. It looks an awful lot like Objective 17(c) of the UN Global Migration Compact.

1. Satire and Parody
Including satire in a typology about disinformation and misinformation, is perhaps surprising. Satire and parody could be considered as a form of art. However, in a world where people increasingly receive information via their social feeds, there has been confusion when it is not understood a site is satirical. An example is from The Khabaristan Times, a satirical column and site that were part of the news site Pakistan Today. 60 In January 2017, the site was blocked in Pakistan and therefore stopped publishing.

From page 46, apparently satire qualifies as misinformation since people can’t always tell when people are being satirical.

In some instances, journalists have been targeted in acts of ‘astroturfing’ and ‘trolling’ – deliberate attempts to “mislead, misinform, befuddle, or endanger journalists” with the sharing of information designed to distract and misdirect them, or their potential sources. Alternatively, journalists might be targeted to trick them into sharing inaccurate information which feeds a false interpretation of the facts or, when it is revealed as fake, diminishes the credibility of the journalist (and the news organisation with which they are affiliated). In other cases, they face digital threats designed to expose their sources, breach their privacy to expose them to risk, or access their unpublished data.
.
There is also the phenomenon of governments mobilising ‘digital hate squads’ to chill critical commentary and quash freedom of expression.

Cherilyn Ireton and Julie Posetti, on page 109, talk about journalists being targeted for harassment, or having unwarranted attacks on their work. They hypocrisy is obvious, as they promote having viewpoints they deem “misinformation” to be hidden from searches, or have authors bankrupted via ad revenue loss. Furthermore, they suggest bankrolling or subsidizing their competitors, or “trustworthy” media.

6. Parallel Of Coronavirus & Climate Change

(17:50) the speaker talks of how the science is always moving. Yet critics are dismissed when they question official narratives.
(20:00) How to get children to spread the right news.
(30:30) scrolling internet to determine truth is impractical.
(47:00) parallel between CV and global warming.

Of course there are other topics discussed in that video, but those were a few worth focusing on.

7. UNESCO’s Twitter Feed

https://twitter.com/UN/status/1277859413655609349
https://twitter.com/masflov/status/1277944012054413312

UNESCO reminds us to be careful about lies and misinformation, and to only trust official sources for information on the CV pandemic. Don’t share info that contradicts the ever changing narrative.


https://twitter.com/UNESCO/status/1274056209264508929
UNESCO held a webinar on June 22nd, to talk about human rights abuses that had gone on as a result of the CV-19 “pandemic”. This is morbidly amusing, as UNESCO repeatedly recommends that people only listen to and trust official channels and sources. Guess who were the people calling for restrictions of human rights?

https://twitter.com/MelissaFleming/status/1272448950440771587
UNESCO seems to be 100% on board with the George Floyd psy-op. Remember, to only listen to official sources, and avoid sharing misinformation. No mention of course why people flock to the West if it’s such a racist hellhole.

8. UNESCO Supports Digital Cooperation

https://twitter.com/UNESCO/status/1272606427698339845

https://twitter.com/antonioguterres/status/1271089192018288641

Here is a call by UNESCO to support so-called “Digital Cooperation”. What is it, and why is it so bad? UN Digital Cooperation is a program that is already underway, to attempt global internet regulation. It’s a horrible idea, since it would eventually lead to global control of internet activity. Ideas and views that are deemed “inappropriate” for whatever reason could be shut down.

See this piece for a previous review on the topic of digital cooperation. It’s worth noting that the shooting in New Zealand in 2019 has been an excuse to try to bring in a “digital charter“. However, the principle of global internet control long precedes that shooting.

Notice that all attempts to shut down free speech and a free media are done under some guise of “public safety” or of “preventing emotional harm”. Very rarely, of ever, is it admitted that the goal is to eliminate free speech.

From a debate in a 2019 Burnaby South by-election, then Liberal Candidate Richard Lee openly suggested that the United Nations should have a department to regulate the internet. Perhaps he was unaware that this was already in the works.

The scale, spread and speed of change brought about by digital technology is unprecedented, and the current means and levels of international cooperation are unequal to the challenge. Digital technologies make a significant contribution to the realisation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and cut uniquely across international boundaries, policy silos and professional domains. Cooperation across domains and across borders is therefore critical to realising the full social and economic potential of digital technologies, mitigating the risks they pose, and curtailing any unintended consequences.

The High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation was convened by the UN Secretary-General to provide recommendations on how the international community could work together to optimise the use of digital technologies and mitigate the risks. In June 2019, the Panel published their report “The Age of Digital Interdependence” and with it a series of recommendations to improve digital cooperation.

Sounds pretty Orwellian, doesn’t it? Instead of nations determining their own internet policies, there will soon be a “global consensus” on how the internet should be used, and for what purposes. UNESCO presumably supports this all.

9. UNESCO Supports Mass Vaccinations

https://twitter.com/UN/status/1271805271334023174

The world can only contain the virus and its impacts if every person has access to accurate, reliable information. That’s down to all of us. Verified is a United Nations initiative to encourage us all to check the advice we share. Sign up to receive content you can trust: life-saving information, fact-based advice, and stories from the best of humanity. Look out for the double tick.

Apparently this site is an agent of disinformation, considering all of the effort done to expose the lobbying and corruption behind the vaccine agenda. Remember folks, only trust verified sources of information, and assume all others are lying to you.

10. China Falsified Reporting

China had supposedly brought this to the attention of the World Health Organization in late 2019. However, that was revealed to be a lie. Still, according to UNESCO, we should only trust official sources.

11. UNESCO Is Propaganda Outlet

UNESCO promotes various Un agendas, which is not surprising given that it is part of the UN. In various outlets, the group reiterates that only official and verified sources can be trusted, and that others are to be viewed with skepticism.

The reality is the UNESCO, and the UN as a whole, are not interested in truth or research that contradicts their narratives. Better to smear contradictory sources as “misinformation” than to answer the hard questions they pose.

Posted on

CV #26: Toronto Public Health Admits To Falsifying Cause Of Death In “Victims”

According to Toronto Public Health: “Individuals who have died with COVID-19, but not as a result of COVID-19 are included in the case counts for COVID-19 deaths in Toronto.”
https://twitter.com/TOPublicHealth/status/1275888390060285967
https://archive.vn/oS0Po

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

For the very extensive effort to expose the coronavirus hoax, see the previous two dozen articles on the subject. Much of it includes the lobbying efforts, and the money changing hands. Once you understand the money and influence peddling behind the scenes, things start to make sense.

2. Toronto Public Health “Claims” 1,100 Deaths


https://twitter.com/TOPublicHealth/status/1278062510717964288

In a June 30 tweet, Toronto Public Health claimed that there were 1,093 (nearly 1,100) deaths due to coronavirus. Interestingly, they neglect to mention that they consider all deaths where a person HAS this virus to be CAUSED by the virus.

These are not the same thing. If a person was run over by a drunk driver and die, the cause of death would be some sort of blood loss or blunt force trauma. Even if he or she had the virus or some other disease, that is not the cause of death. Saying otherwise is fraudulent.

3. TPH Retweets John Tory’s Mask Hoax


https://twitter.com/JohnTory/status/1277966131446247425

Toronto Mayor John Tory made it mandatory for residents to begin wearing masks, and Toronto Public Health obviously promoted the decision. However, the whole mask demands are about getting the citizens to submit, rather than any real health benefits. No one demonstrates the dishonesty more than Anthony Fauci, the “top doctor” in the U.S.

Anthony Fauci later claimed he only recommended against masks in order to prevent a buying spree which would have left no masks available for health care workers. Motives aside, he blatantly lied to the public. In the third video, he appears to take the mask off as soon as the cameras are off. But remember, trust the experts and official sources.

4. More Lies From Toronto Public Health

The Toronto Public Health feed is full of tweets like this, tracking total deaths. However, it is all based on deception, since Toronto (as many other surely do) treats people who HAVE the coronavirus — or any of these viruses — as if it CAUSED their deaths.

5. City Of Toronto Lies About Virus Deaths

The City of Toronto continues to respond to COVID-19. Torontonians are reminded to continue adhering to Toronto Public Health’s advice to wash their hands often, stay within their social circle of no more than 10 people, and practise physical distancing, or wear a face covering or non-medical mask to protect others when in settings where physical distancing cannot be maintained.

There are 14,134 cases of COVID-19 in the city, an increase of 40 cases since yesterday. There are 233 people hospitalized, with 60 in ICU. In total, 12,215 people have recovered from COVID-19, an increase of 88 cases since yesterday. To date, there have been 1,072 COVID-19 deaths in Toronto. Case status data can be found on the City’s reporting platform.

Provincial Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act orders, the City bylaw on physical distancing, and laws prohibiting consumption of alcohol on City property and in unlicensed public areas remain in effect. Yesterday, the City received 103 complaints related to parks use and physical distancing. Officers have spoken to or cautioned more than 6,600 people this month. Bylaw officers issued nine tickets yesterday in City parks or squares.
The City’s website is updated daily with the latest health advice and information about City services, social supports and economic recovery measures. Check toronto.ca/covid-19/ for answers to common questions before contacting the Toronto Public Health COVID-19 Hotline or 311.

Toronto is home to more than 2.9 million people whose diversity and experiences make this great city Canada’s leading economic engine and one of the world’s most diverse and livable cities. As the fourth largest city in North America, Toronto is a global leader in technology, finance, film, music, culture and innovation, and consistently places at the top of international rankings due to investments championed by its government, residents and businesses. For more information visit toronto.ca or follow us on Twitter at twitter.com/CityofToronto , on Instagram at instagram.com/cityofto or on Facebook at facebook.com/cityofto .

Toronto has 2.9 million residents, and has had 1,100 deaths due to this so-called virus. And there has clearly been some inflation to get it that high. Even if it were true, it would mean that 1 our of every 3,000 or so people have died from CV. It’s obviously completely overblown.

Yet nowhere in this press release is it stated that people who simply have the virus and die are presumed to have died because of it. A little transparency would be nice.

6. Ontario Government Supports Falsification

In a very roundabout way, the Ontario Government admits that on at least one occasion, a person who did not die of CV-19 was classified as that being the cause of death. This woman died in a car crash, but it was still attributed to this virus.

7. CDC (U.S.) Inflating Death Totals


Alert-1-Guidance-for-Certifying-COVID-19-Deaths

The CDC, the Center for Disease Control (U.S.), has been making it easy to lie and FALSELY CLAIM that a person had died of Covid-19 when it is unknown. Take a look.

It is important to emphasize that Coronavirus Disease 2019 or COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death. Other terminology, e.g., SARS-CoV-2, can be used as long as it is clear that it indicates the 2019 coronavirus strain, but we would prefer use of WHO’s standard terminology, e.g., COVID-19. Specification of the causal pathway leading to death in Part I of the certificate is also important. For example, in cases when COVID-19 causes pneumonia and fatal respiratory distress, both pneumonia and respiratory distress should be included along with COVID-19 in Part I. Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, medical records, laboratory testing, etc. If the decedent had other chronic conditions such as COPD or asthma that may have also contributed, these conditions can be reported in Part II. Here is an example:

Look at how it is worded. “disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death”. It doesn’t say that the virus caused the death, but rather assumed to have caused or contributed to death. That is a much, much lower standard.

Why would doctors misdiagnose someone on purpose? A cynic might wonder if it has to do with the extra federal funds that are available for coronavirus patients. Supposedly $39,000 dollars (USD) if it is a covid patient.

Yes, this information has been out for quite a while. Still, it’s worth a reminder about just how deceitful the system is when it’s rewarded financially.

8. Death Tolls Artificially Inflated

If the only way to get the numbers up is to falsify the cause of death (or just not properly determine it), then it’s clear that governments are lying to their citizens. Toronto Public Health has admitted that people who test positive for this virus after death are attributed to the virus, even if that wasn’t the actual cause of death. The Ontario Government has admitted to doing it, and only because they got caught. This goes on elsewhere as well.

This pandemic is a hoax. People need to wake up.

Posted on

CV #25: De-Anonymizing The Anonymous Contact Tracing App

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here.

2. Disclaimer: Limited Personal Knowledge

To start out with a disclaimer, I am hardly any sort of expert on cell phone technology. So this article is written from a more lay perspective. Nonetheless, the announcement of the contact tracing app in Canada opens up a lot of hard questions that need to be answered. Can the Government (or any government) be trusted with this claim, and is it even feasible?

This isn’t meant to be an alarmist piece, but there are very real concerns and doubts about just how confidential all of this will remain. Consider the following.

3. Research Into Re-Identification, 2019

While rich medical, behavioral, and socio-demographic data are key to modern data-driven research, their collection and use raise legitimate privacy concerns. Anonymizing datasets through de-identification and sampling before sharing them has been the main tool used to address those concerns. We here propose a generative copula-based method that can accurately estimate the likelihood of a specific person to be correctly re-identified, even in a heavily incomplete dataset. On 210 populations, our method obtains AUC scores for predicting individual uniqueness ranging from 0.84 to 0.97, with low false-discovery rate. Using our model, we find that 99.98% of Americans would be correctly re-identified in any dataset using 15 demographic attributes. Our results suggest that even heavily sampled anonymized datasets are unlikely to satisfy the modern standards for anonymization set forth by GDPR and seriously challenge the technical and legal adequacy of the de-identification release-and-forget model.

De-identification, the process of anonymizing datasets before sharing them, has been the main paradigm used in research and elsewhere to share data while preserving people’s privacy. Data protection laws worldwide consider anonymous data as not personal data anymore allowing it to be freely used, shared, and sold. Academic journals are, e.g., increasingly requiring authors to make anonymous data available to the research community. While standards for anonymous data vary, modern data protection laws, such as the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), consider that each and every person in a dataset has to be protected for the dataset to be considered anonymous. This new higher standard for anonymization is further made clear by the introduction in GDPR of pseudonymous data: data that does not contain obvious identifiers but might be re-identifiable and is therefore within the scope of the law.

This was a research paper released in 2019, before the coronavirus planned-emic hit the world stage. While to long to into depth here, the researchers found and listed many examples of people being able to re-identify people using supposedly anonymized data sets. While original data had many modifiers removed, it was possible to reverse engineer it, and re-establish people’s identities using multiple sets of incomplete data.

Two of the biggest issues in the research were health care data and internet browsing data. They were initially anonymized, but then computers were able to piece together to data and provide names. While not always correct, these techniques were overall very accurate in re-establishing identities.

Research data is widely shared for many purposes. Laws in the West allow for personal information to be shared as long as it is “anonymized” first. However, if that can be undone, then an end run around privacy laws can be accomplished.

Now, this type of bypass of privacy has been underway for a long time. People have to ask whether it will continue (or even escalate), in the face of this so-called pandemic.

4. Governor William Weld’s Medical Info

Re-Identification_of_Welds_Medical_Information

This is an old case, but a good one. Former Massachusetts Governor William Weld was able to have his medical history re-identified from anonymized medical information. How so? State voter rolls provided birth date and zip code information. Being a public figure, people knew quite a bit about him. Even with redacted records, it was possible to piece it together.

But one doesn’t have to be a politician. With the information available from various databases, a computer scientist can easily piece profiles together.

Keep in mind this was done in 1997, and led to HIPPA, new privacy regulations coming into place. However, that was over 20 years ago, and computers have advanced a long way since. Moreover, internet usage has resulted in astronomical amounts of personal information being available online.

Now for some questions about this app.

5. Will The App Really Be Anonymous?

The first thing that people should be asking is whether claims that this app will be anonymous at all. A healthy distrust of the your government is helpful in all cases. Everything they say and promise should be met with some degree of skepticism.

Bear in mind, this is the same government that thought nothing of having Statistics Canada do data mining of over 500,000 Canadians. They then threw StatsCan under the bus when there was public backlash. It was just 2 years ago, and addressed in those articles.

Beyond distrust of the government, a follow-up must be asked. Even if this were anonymous, as advertised, can it be de-anonymized at a later point? Can the app makers use some decryption to identify users? What about other third parties?

How easy will it be to use AI or to combine partial data sets to re-identify people? What happens when the profiles are “Frankenstein-ed” together? Who gets the data? How will it be used, and will we even know?

6. What Qualifies As Contact?

Is passing someone on the street or in the grocery store sufficient to count as “coming in contact” with someone? is a few seconds enough? A minute? 5 minutes? Sure there is more information coming out, but having some standard would be nice. Knowing what the standard is would also help.

7. Positive Test Linked To Phone Number?

There are plenty of issues with the coronavirus testing itself. However, that is a piece for another day. This is about the privacy aspects.

Suppose you test positive for this virus. What happens then? Do you change the settings on your phone, or does the medical staff then insert your phone number or “random number” into a database of people who have tested positive? Is that result then connected to anything and anyplace you go, or that your phone is reported to have a connection to?

8. Lies About Phone Not Geo-Tagging?

There are claims that there will be no geo-tagging, or storing of locations. How exactly does that work though? How can a phone app determine that a user has been close to someone who has tested positive? It’s difficult to believe that phones would just start collecting the random assigned numbers of everyone it has been close to (though possible I guess), but not record any sort of geographical data?

Any sort of mainstream technology that has GPS tracking can find places, people or things, but does so with reference to spots on a map. How could this contact tracing app determine when phones are close to each other, but not have any geographical reference?

It seems possible that this government app could use geographical references, but then not store the data. However, considering outfits like Google are well ahead in tracking movements, it seems strange to develop this app to not record location data.

9. StatsCan Provides Microdata For Free

Unrestricted access to microdata
Statistics Canada offers Public Use Microdata Files (PUMFs) to institutions and individuals. They are non-aggregated data which are carefully modified and then reviewed to ensure that no individual or business is directly or indirectly identified. These can be accessed directly through the Data Liberation Initiative (DLI) or the PUMF Collection for a subscription fee. Individual files can also be requested at no cost.

For reference, a files can be ordered for free. A purchase of $5,000 per year, which gives unlimited access to all of the microdata used by StatCan in its various research and publications. The data is supposed to be anonymized, but one has to ask how easy it would be to piece together individual or businesses, based on this information, plus other available sources.

StatsCan already has plenty of CV-19 research released and available for the public. It isn’t too much of a stretch to think that searching for where people cluster, or amount of time spent in an area is researched.

10. StatsCan’s “Approved Microdata Linkages”

What does Statistics Canada do with your personal information?
.
We use it to its full potential
Whether Statistics Canada received your information directly from you or through a third party such as another government entity, we use it to its full potential. We avoid having to ask the same question more than once so that we can produce relevant, timely and accurate statistics. Linking Canadians’ information from different files enables Statistics Canada to produce more statistics and research, which are in turn used by decision makers. We will only link personal information when its value to the public good outweighs the intrusion of privacy. For example, we can take the answers you gave on a survey and link them to your tax record. The objective is to draw conclusions based on a large sample of the population. More information on all Approved microdata linkages.

StatsCan openly admits that it will combine data from various sources and combine it. So this “anonymizing” is only done AFTER various things are combined, if it even done at all.

Approved microdata linkages
.
The linking of separate records from different sources can be a very useful and cost-efficient technique in the design, production, analysis and evaluation of statistical data. It can lead to important savings in cost, time, and respondent burden, and, in some cases, it may be the only feasible way to obtain important statistical information. When possible, rather than conducting additional surveys, Statistics Canada uses the information that individuals, businesses and institutions have already provided to the Agency or to other government departments for methodological purposes, data enhancement and subject-matter studies. The following is a list of the microdata linkage submissions that have been reviewed and approved in accordance with the Statistics Canada Directive on Microdata Linkage, starting in January 2000. Choose any of the following titles to view a summary:

To be clear, Statistics Canada already has the system of combining various datasets (including information provided by other government agencies, schools, businesses and institutions. In fact, it has gone this for a good 20 years now. Presumably the anonymising is done AFTER this is compiled.

Looking at the approved microdata linking from 2019 (the most recent year), we get:

  • Evaluating the Information Content in the Business Outlook Survey (002-2019)
  • Evaluating the Information Content in the Business Outlook Survey (002-2019)
  • The impact of Intellectual Property on the Canadian Economy (003-2019)
  • The impact of Intellectual Property on the Canadian Economy (003-2019)
  • LASS 2016 to Census 2016, Census 2011 and NHS 2011 Linkage (004-2019)
  • LASS 2016 to Census 2016, Census 2011 and NHS 2011 Linkage (004-2019)
  • Linkage of the National Dose Registry to cancer and mortality outcomes, an update (005-2019)
  • Linkage of the National Dose Registry to cancer and mortality outcomes, an update (005-2019)
  • Municipal Wastewater Systems in Canada (MWSC): Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) Effluent Regulatory Reporting Information System (ERRIS) linkage to Census Data (006-2019)
  • Municipal Wastewater Systems in Canada (MWSC): Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) Effluent Regulatory Reporting Information System (ERRIS) linkage to Census Data (006-2019)
  • Adding Gender to the Corporations Returns Act (CRA) database (007-2019)
  • Adding Gender to the Corporations Returns Act (CRA) database (007-2019)
  • Between and within-firm earnings inequality in Canada (008-2019)
  • Between and within-firm earnings inequality in Canada (008-2019)
  • Indian Register linked to tax data, (Longitudinal Indian Register Database (LIRD)) (009-2019)
  • Indian Register linked to tax data, (Longitudinal Indian Register Database (LIRD)) (009-2019)
  • 2016 Census of Population linkage to income tax files and benefits records to monitor tax filing behaviour and take-up rate of various benefit programs (011-2019)
  • 2016 Census of Population linkage to income tax files and benefits records to monitor tax filing behaviour and take-up rate of various benefit programs (011-2019)
  • Linkage of the 2002 Canadian Community Health Survey – Mental Health and Well-being – Canadian Forces (CCHS-CF) to the 2018 Canadian Armed Forces Members and Veterans Mental Health Follow-up Survey (CAFVMHS) (021-2019)
  • Linkage of the 2002 Canadian Community Health Survey – Mental Health and Well-being – Canadian Forces (CCHS-CF) to the 2018 Canadian Armed Forces Members and Veterans Mental Health Follow-up Survey (CAFVMHS) (021-2019)
  • Socioeconomic and Ethnocultural Disparities in Perinatal Health in Canada: Current Pattern and Changes Over Time (023-2019)
  • Socioeconomic and Ethnocultural Disparities in Perinatal Health in Canada: Current Pattern and Changes Over Time (023-2019)
  • Linkage of the Canadian Housing Survey to historical income information, information on social and affordable housing, measures on proximity to services and measures on income dispersion in communities (024-2019)
  • Linkage of the Canadian Housing Survey to historical income information, information on social and affordable housing, measures on proximity to services and measures on income dispersion in communities (024-2019)
  • Linkage of Labour Force Survey with Longitudinal Workers File (025-2019)
  • Linkage of Labour Force Survey with Longitudinal Workers File (025-2019)
  • The Economic and Environmental Impacts of Voluntary Energy Conservation Programs: Evidence from the Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation (026-2019)
  • The Economic and Environmental Impacts of Voluntary Energy Conservation Programs: Evidence from the Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation (026-2019)

Since Statistics Canada already incorporates health information and combines various sets of data to make “more complete profiles”, it is clearly possible to add CV tests — both positive and negative as well. While calling for it publicly is political poison, who’s to say it won’t be quietly slipped in at some point?

Remember as well, these profiles are combined, and only then anonymized. However, the more information in the profile, the easier it would be for researchers to reverse engineer the anonymizing techniques to restore identities. In fact, it’s quite possible that the algorithm and techniques will be readily available.

Remember, StatsCan allows people to order individual files for free. It you want a full 1-year subscription, it costs a mere $5,000. If you are interested in real data mining, it’s pocket change.

11. Shopify & Blackberry Develop App

Canada will launch a nationwide contact tracing app using the Apple-Google Exposure Notification framework, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Thursday.

The Apple-Google Exposure Notification API exited beta in May. It allows public health authorities to build deeply integrated, cross-platform contact tracing apps to track and curb the spread of coronavirus.

The Canadian app was developed by Shopify, BlackBerry and the government of Ontario. As is required by Apple and Google, the app will be completely voluntary, will only store data in a decentralized manner and will be led by the Canadian Digital Service Initiative, iPhoneInCanada reported.

Blackberry and Shopify developed the app for use in Canada. Companies like Google are well known for obtaining huge amounts of data on their users so this is a huge red flag. How do we know there isn’t some sort of back door built into the platform?

By contrast, a few countries, like Norway, have banned such an app, out of privacy concerns.

12. Government Already Compiles The Info

As seen in earlier sections, StatsCan already combines sources to build “more complete” profiles of the people it wants to survey. Even your credit isn’t safe if StatsCan wants it. As for the finished project, the information can be bought, and individual files requested for free. How difficult would it be to take the raw data provided, and cross reference across other social media or other databases? How long until the original names are restored to the profiles?

With all this data compilation, it won’t be difficult to link a positive test to a real name, an address, or a date of birth. The suggestion that all of this will remain completely anonymous flies in the face of what the government and StatsCan do.

It also isn’t much of a stretch to see the “anonymized” results sold or given to third parties to conduct their own research. Stay away from the app would be some good advice. It would be nice to just take at face value the claims that there are no privacy issues. However, that’s very naïve.

Again, this is not meant to send people into a panic, but much more has to be known and discussed to make such an app a real solution, if it is at all.

Posted on

CV #24: Gates Financing Of Imperial College London, And Their Modelling

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here.

2. Alternate Theory On Models

Epidemiologist Neil Ferguson has (justifiably) taken a lot of criticism for his doomsday computer modelling of how the coronavirus “planned-emic” was supposed to play out.

Considering Ferguson’s laughable failures in other predictions before, people are wondering why anyone still takes this man seriously. That is a fair question to ask.

But consider an alternate theory. Let’s suppose these doomsday scenarios were cooked up on purpose. Perhaps this modelling INTENTIONALLY led to overhyped conclusions and estimates. It wasn’t incompetence, but deliberate.

Why would someone do this? To answer this, think about where Imperial College London gets a good amount of its financing from. There are many vested interests who would stand to make a fortune if countries around the world were desperate for a vaccine. In this scenario, Ferguson’s modelling should not be taken as research, but as a calculated effort at propaganda.

Disclaimer: I don’t have any hard evidence to support such a theory. However, it is interesting that Ferguson’s work is financed by people who would greatly benefit from him reaching a doomsday conclusion. It’s reasonable to assume he would become more cautious after his repeated failure, but he hasn’t.

3. Gates Grants To Imperial College London

This chart was compiled from information posted on the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation website. The following grants are just those provided to Imperial College London. Note: it seems that computer modelling is just one small part of what they do.

DATE AMOUNT PURPOSE
June 2002 $31,928,231 Schistosomiasis Control
July 2002 $30,000,000 HIV Prevention
Jan 2003 $200,000,000 AIDS, Malaria, Other Diseases
July 2005 $12,501,971 Tuberculosis
Oct 2005 $8,636,543 Test CD4+, T-lymphnodes
Nov 2005 $8,600,000 AIDS Testing
June 2006 $9,185,813 Novel Recombinant Adenovirus
Oct 2006 $9,826,566 Health Package in Dev. World
Dec 2006 $46,700,000 Neglected Tropical Diseases
Sept 2007 $3,565,073 Neglected Tropical Dis.
Oct 2007 $47,616 STD, Infections
Oct 2008 $100,000 Prevent TB Replication
Oct 2008 $7,344,583 HIV/AIDS Research
Feb 2009 $7,300,000 HIV/AIDS Research
Feb 2009 $871,544 Collab W/Euro Partners
Sept 2009 $16,529,688 Feeding Prog in Africa
Oct 2009 $100,000 “Homing Factors” As Vax Adjuvants
Oct 2009 $100,000 Enzymes, Malaria Parasites
Nov 2009 $1,200,000 Nutrition Research
Sept 2010 $2,692,835 Euro Agri Development
Oct 2010 $3,044,244 HIV Computer Modelling***
Oct 2010 $1,648,585 Neglected Tropical Disease
Nov 2010 2.7M (pounds) Agricultural Research
Dec 2010 $1,500,000 Disease From Livestock
Apr 2011 $100,000 Polio Vaccine, India
Oct 2011 $100,000 Self-Replicating Biosensor
Oct 2011 $2,724,038 Malaria Blocker Research
May 2012 $3,018,257 Oral Polio Vaccine
Oct 2012 $3,589,972 Malaria Computer Models***
Oct 2012 $1,132,773 HIV, Hormone Contraceptives
June 2013 $5,194,767 HIV, Intervention, Planning
June 2013 $1,397,325 Merger, Computer Modelling***
oct 2013 $1,894,953 Advocacy, EU Donors
Oct 2013 $648,060 Product Development, Misc.
Nov 2013 $772,341 Polio Computer Modelling***
Nov 2013 $2,054,944 DNA Vaccine, HIV
Nov 2013 $582,541 TB Computer Modelling***
Nov 2013 $2,743,052 Health Care Consulting
Sept 2014 $74,433 Information Dissemination
Oct 2014 $36,752 Vaxx Research Meetings
Oct 2014 $98,934 Cell Phones, Meals
Oct 2014 $181,868 Cost Estimates, Vaccines
Apr 2015 $100,000 Meals Or Shoes For Vaxx
May 2015 $249,549 Optical Imaging, Gut Lesions
July 2015 $1,271,423 HIV/AIDS Testing
Nov 2015 $180,000 Child Health, Africa
Dec 2015 $15,558,425 Global Health Care
Apr 2016 $100,000 Vaxx for HIV, mucosal
May 2016 $37,468,960 Stop Malaria Transmission
Nov 2016 $100,000 Malaria Tracing Modelling***
Nov 2016 $5,625,310 Vaxx Computer Modelling***
Nov 2016 $3,752,342 Mosquito Tampering
Nov 2017 $736,222 Malaria Tracking
May 2018 $1,320,030 HIV Prevention
Sept 2018 $505,207 HIV/Reprod Modelling***
Sept 2018 $292,318 Mosquito Sporozoites
Nov 2018 $326,707 TB Computer Modelling***
May 2019 $100,000 Crop Viruses
July 2019 $11,300 Attend Mosquito Summit
Nov 2019 $959,389 Typhoid Surveillance
Mar 2020 $79,006,570 Malaria Control, Africa
May 2020 $52,180 Testing Gene Drives
May 2020 $2,699,443 Degradable Contraceptive Implant
June 2020 $3,375,098 Population Replacement In Genes

As for just the funds directly provided to Imperial College London for computer modelling, these are the donations listed on the site.

DATE AMOUNT PURPOSE
Oct 2010 $3,044,244 HIV Computer Modelling***
Oct 2012 $3,589,972 Malaria Computer Models***
June 2013 $1,397,325 Merger, Computer Modelling***
Nov 2013 $772,341 Polio Computer Modelling***
Nov 2013 $582,541 TB Computer Modelling***
Nov 2016 $100,000 Malaria Tracing Modelling***
Nov 2016 $5,625,310 Vaxx Computer Modelling***
Sept 2018 $505,207 HIV/Reprod Modelling***
Nov 2018 $326,707 TB Computer Modelling***

Yes, the Gates Foundation directly finances a lot of the computer modelling that Imperial College London is involved with. Some $16 million or so directly granted for these computer models.

But do these doomsday models actually work? Are they supposed to? Perhaps not. After all, if they predicted that there weren’t deadly pandemic, then there would be no need to develop a vaccine.

4. From Gates Foundation Tax Records, ICL

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION
EIN: 56-2618866
gates.foundation.taxes.2016
gates.foundation.taxes.2017
gates.foundation.taxes.2018

Don’t worry. It’s not like this is any major conflict of interest, or anything like that.

5. Imperial College London Admits Grants

Even a quick look of the website for Imperial College London will show many grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

6. GAVI Funded By Gates Foundation

This is probably the most well known link in the chain. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation helped found GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance in 1999, and has made regular contributions to it. The foundation essentially runs the show.

The Global Vaccine Alliance, as the name suggests, is an organization devoted to pushing vaccinations on the public all across the world. Bill Gates has long been a proponent of mass vaccinations.

One of (but certainly not the only) lobbyist for the vaccine agenda is a firm called Crestview Strategy. They lobbied the Federal Government on behalf of GAVI, on 20 separate occasions. See Part 4 in the series.

7. Gates/GAVI Issuing Vaccine Bonds

(Information on what the International Finance Facility for Immunization, or IFFIm, really is and does)

This was covered in Part 18 of the series. Vaccine bonds are now a real thing, and GAVI is involved in running the operation. Of course, the bonds market would completely dry up if there weren’t a pandemic to deal with. Pretty convenient.

8. Gates Influence In Pharma Industry

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION
EIN: 56-2618866
gates.foundation.taxes.2016
gates.foundation.taxes.2017
gates.foundation.taxes.2018

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION TRUST
EIN: 91-1663695
gates.foundation.trust.taxes.2018

Company Type Of Stock Shares Total Value
Eli Lilly Corp Bonds – $952,265
Gilead Sciences Common 21,250 $1,329,188
Gilead Sciences Corp Bonds – $3,297,777
Laobaixing Pharma Common 831,829 $5,719,831
Merck Common 27,200 $2,078,352
Novartis Common 70,330 $5,995,662
Pfizer Common 39,500 $1,724,175
Roche Common 37,881 $9,353,059
Sichuan Kelun Common 2,818,448 8,480,098
Sinopharm Common 394,080 $1,655,978
Tasly Pharma Common 8,114,941 $22,693,515
Teva Fin BV Corp Bonds – $819,555
Teva Fin IV Corp Bonds – $9,465
Teva Pharma NE Corp Bonds – $1,106,435

While this is by no means an exhaustive list, the point is clear. See Part 21 in the series. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust (which is separate from the Foundation), owns stocks and bonds in many pharmaceutical companies that are pushing the Federal Government for money to develop a vaccine.

9. Gates Funding WHO & CDC

It’s pretty well known at this point that the World Health Organization and Center for Disease Control in the U.S. both are heavily funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Consequently, they toe the line that coronavirus is a deadly pandemic, and that vaccines are necessary.

10. Immunization 2030, ID2020

This was addressed in Part 3. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is heavily involved in both ID2020 and Immunization Agenda 2030. The Foundation also supports some version of a “vaccine certification” which would be needed to go about life in the new normal.

Of course, advancing these agendas depends on there being a pandemic (or perceived pandemic). Good thing Ferguson was so completely off in his computer modelling. Make no mistake, it’s not only helpful that the death rates be inflated, but essential that they are.

11. Models Supposed To Be Wrong?

Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Charlotte Reid, a farmer’s neighbor, recalls: “I remember that appalling time. Sheep were left starving in fields near us. Then came the open air slaughter. The poor animals were panic stricken. It was one of the worst things I’ve witnessed. And all based on a model — if’s but’s and maybe’s.”

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that, by 2080, up to 150,000 people could die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.

In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.

In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.

Last March, Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code last week, after a six-week delay.

Could it be that Ferguson is truly incompetent, and has no clue what he is doing? Or, are his predictions exaggerated on purpose? There’s no reason to take him or his models seriously, yet governments still do.

While this all sounds like an absurd conspiracy theory, consider what else is going on. Would there be a growing vaccine bonds industry without this so-called pandemic? Would it be easy to get the public on board with implanting a vaccine certificate, or pushing Immunization 2030? How else could one get the public on board with making mask wearing seem normal?

It is possible that there is nothing malevolent here, and that Ferguson is just a serial screwup. But it’s undeniable that these screwups help advance other parts of the agenda.

Nothing is as it seems.
Question everything.